THIRD DIVISION
November 20, 2017
G.R. No. 180586
ARNELIO B. CALMA, Petitioner
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent
D E C I S I O N
MARTIRES, J.:
This is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse and set aside the 28 September 2007 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 27659, which affirmed the 17 June 2003 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 4133, finding petitioner Amelio B. Calma (Calma) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs.
THE FACTS
Calma was indicted under an Information, dated 12 March 2002, with violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425 otherwise known as "The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972," as amended, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about March 6, 2002 in the afternoon, in Barangay Quirino, Municipality of Solano, Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, caught in flagrante delicto, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess, sell, administer, deliver and give away to law enforcement agents who posed as buyers point eight (.8) gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), more or less, contained in two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, which is a regulated drug, to the damage and prejudice of the Republic of the Philippines.3
When arraigned, Calma, who was then duly assisted by counsel, entered a plea of "Not Guilty."4
Evidence for the Prosecution
The prosecution presented four (4) witnesses, namely: Police Officer (PO) 2 Amel Padilla (PO2 Padilla), who acted as the poseur-buyer; POI Erwin Bautista (POJ Bautista), a member of the buy-bust team; Senior Police Officer 3 Romulo Labiano (SPO3 Labiano), the on-duty investigator at the police station of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya; and Police Inspector Mayra M. Madria (PI Madria ), the Forensic Chemist. Their combined testimonies tended to establish the following:
On 6 March 2002, at around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, while Police Senior Inspector Corazon Valencia (PSI Valencia), POI Bautista, SPO4 Luisito Lannu (SPO4 Lannu), and PO2 Padilla were at the Solano police station, PSI Valencia received a call from a female informant regarding a drug deal which was about to take place in front of the Yellow Lemon Beauty Salon (Yellow Lemon) at Yogad Street, Quirino, Solano. Upon the instruction of PSI Valencia, the female informant went to the Solano police station where she discussed the alleged drug deal involving Calma.5
Thereafter, a buy-bust team was formed composed of SPO4 Lannu, PO1 Bautista, PO2 Padilla, and a certain PO1 Flores. The informant then called Calma through a cellphone and arranged a deal with him for the sale of shabu. They agreed to meet in front of Yellow Lemon. PO2 Padilla prepared and photocopied a ₱l,000.00 bill (Exhibit "G")6 to be used as the marked money.7 The buy-bust team immediately proceeded to the target area and waited for the arrival of Calma. The team members positioned themselves near PO2 Padilla, who agreed to act as the poseur-buyer.8
At about 5:40 p.m., Calma arrived in front of Yellow Lemon where he met PO2 Padilla who introduced himself as the buyer mentioned by the informant. Calma asked PO2 Padilla how much shabu he wanted to buy; the latter replied that he wanted to buy shabu worth ₱1,000.00. Calma handed P02 Padilla a sachet containing white crystalline substances (Exhibit "A- 1").9 PO2 Padilla, in turn, handed Calma the ₱l,000.00 bill.10
Right after the exchange, PO2 Padilla introduced himself as a police officer. Calma tried to run but his path was blocked by the members of the buy-bust team who apprehended him. The police officers took Calma's cellphone, searched his motorcycle, and found a wallet underneath the driver's seat. Upon examining the wallet, they discovered another sachet containing a white crystalline substances (Exhibit "A-2")11 inside the wallet. PO2 Padilla also retrieved the ₱1,000.00 bill from Calma. Thereafter, the buy-bust team brought Calma to the Solano police station where he was handed over to SPO3 Labiano together with the confiscated cellphone, motorcycle, and the two sachets containing white crystalline substances.12
The two sachets were then submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. In Chemistry Report No. D-14-2002 (Exhibit "F"),13 the crime laboratory revealed that the white crystalline substances contained in the two sachets yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu and had a total weight of 0.23 grams.
Evidence for the Defense14
The defense presented Calma and Amy De Guzman (De Guzman), a beautician at Yellow Lemon, as witnesses. Their combined testimonies tended to establish Calma's innocence, as follows:
On 6 March 2002, at around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Calma left his residence aboard a motorcycle and proceeded to Yellow Lemon to have his hair cut. Upon arrival he noticed that the beauticians were busy so he went out of the 'salon and proceeded to his motorcycle intending to leave.
After starting his engine, two (2) men blocked his path, one of whom brought out a gun, but he ignored them and started to move his motorcycle but the men were able to hold on to its handles. He stood up, ran, and entered Yellow Lemon. The two persons chased after him and eventually got hold of him. At this juncture, SPO4 Lannu, whom Calma recognized, arrived and told him to go with them to the police station. He was handcuffed, boarded on a tricycle, and brought to the Solano police station.
The following morning, Calma was subjected to drug testing which yielded negative results for the presence of any dangerous or prohibited drug.1âwphi1 Nevertheless, Calma was brought to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva Vizcaya and subsequently charged with violation of Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425, as amended.
The RTC Ruling
In its 17 June 2003 Decision, the RTC found Calma guilty of violating Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, finding accused Amelio Calma y Buenviaje GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of illegally selling shabu, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor as the minimum term to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as the maximum term. Costs against the accused.15
Aggrieved, Calma elevated an appeal before the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its assailed decision, the CA affirmed the RTC decision, with the dispositive portion of the CA decision as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appealed decision dated June 17, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 27 in Criminal Case No. 4133 is hereby AFFIRMED.16
Hence, this appeal.
ISSUES
I.
WHETHER THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED MEETS THE REQUIRED PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT AS WOULD OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED.
II.
WHETHER THE MOTORCYCLE AND CELLULAR PHONE MAY BE CONSIDERED FORFEITED IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A RULING TO THAT EFFECT IN THE APPEALED DECISION.17
THE COURT'S RULING
We grant the petition.
Inconsistency not affecting the
elements of the crime cannot be
ground for acquittal.
Insisting on his acquittal, Calma argued that the prosecution failed to clearly and adequately show the details surrounding the purported transaction which was the subject matter of the buy-bust operation. He pointed out that the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent, and in fact even contradicted each other, as to who organized and who were the members of the buy-bust team, who prepared and photocopied the marked money used in the operation, and how the search on the motorcycle was conducted.
This argument fails to persuade.
The apparent inconsistencies cited by Calma are immaterial for the prosecution of this case as they do not touch on the essential elements of the crime charged. An inconsistency which has nothing to do with the elements of the crime cannot be a ground for the acquittal of the accused.18 It is an elementary rule in this jurisdiction that inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration nor the veracity or weight of their testimony. In fact, these minor inconsistencies enhance the credibility of the witnesses, for they remove any suspicion that their testimonies were contrived or rehearsed.19
Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements that the essential elements of the crime of illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, and which should be satisfactorily proven to secure a conviction, are as follows: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.20 What is material, therefore, is proof that the accused peddled illicit drugs, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.21
The details concerning the organization of the buy-bust team, preparation of the marked money, and conduct of the search are immaterial to the prosecution of the crime under Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425. Inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimonies regarding such would not result in the rendering of a decision favorable to Calma.
Be that as it may, the Court is convinced that the prosecution failed to establish Calma's guilt by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution failed to prove
Calma's guilt by proof beyond
reasonable doubt; chain of custody
was not established.
As previously discussed, in prosecutions under the law on dangerous drugs, the illegal drug seized from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense.22 As such, it is indispensable that the substance confiscated from the accused be the very same substance offered in court. For this purpose, the Court has adopted the chain of custody rule, a method of authenticating evidence which requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be.23
The chain of custody is established by testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence; in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received, and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.24
Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized contraband is immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence.25 To ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence, the marking of the seized items should be done in the presence of the apprehended violator and immediately upon confiscation of the said items.26
After a thorough evaluation of the records in this case, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the dangerous drug, and the chain of custody was not established with moral certainty.
Evident from the records is the failure of the buy-bust team to observe the first step which is crucial to establish the chain of custody. This serious blunder can be gleaned from the testimony of PO2 Padilla when he took the witness stand, thus:
PROS. TURINGAN:
Q. After you turned over the items you confiscated from the accused to the investigator including the 2 sachets of shabu, what did the investigator do with respect to the 2 sachets of shabu?
A. He put his initial, sir.
Q. By the way, what is the name of the investigator?
A. SPO3 Romulo Labiano, sir.
Q. What initial did he place on the sachets of shabu?
A. R.E.L., sir.27
Furthermore, during his cross-examination, PO2 Padilla testified as follows:
ATTY. DACAYO:
Q. What happened next when they saw this shabu inside this motorcycle?
A. They put a marking, sir.
Q. There in Yogad?
A. At the police station, sir.
Q. Are you telling us that after they saw this shabu inside this motorcycle they brought it to the station?
A. Yes, for marking purposes.28
As the poseur-buyer, PO2 Padilla first held the first sachet purportedly containing shabu when it was handed to him by Calma. However, instead of marking the first sachet immediately after the successful buy-bust operation, the buy-bust team brought the first sachet together with the second sachet recovered from the motorcycle compartment to the Solano police station where both were marked with the initials "R.E.L." by SPO3 Labiano who was, unfortunately, not a member of the buy-bust team.
Aside from this lapse, there are also material inconsistencies with respect to the submission of the confiscated substance to the crime laboratory. On this matter PO2 Padilla testified that he, together with SPO3 Labiano, brought the two sachets to the crime laboratory, to wit:
ATTY. DACAYO:
Q. And when you brought this shabu to the Crime Lab. at Solano, were you accompanied by other police officers aside from ... with the [ exeption] of Labiano?
A. We were only two (2), sir.
Q. And do you know who carried this shabu to the Crime Lab. at Solano?
COURT:
Q. Who was holding it, in other words?
ATTY. DACAYO:
Q. Who was holding it?
A. Labiano, sir.
Q. Are you sure that Labiano was the one who personally handed the shabu to the Crime Lab. of Solano?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You are sure because you were there, am I correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So, only you and Labiano went to the Crime Lab., is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.29
This testimony was, however, controverted by the documentary evidence on record. The Request for Laboratory and Urine Examination (Exhibit "K"),30 which was a request for the examination of the substances contained in the subject two sachets and the urine of Calma, indicates that the specimens were received by PO2 Dulnuan of the PNP Crime Laboratory in Nueva Vizcaya from a certain SPO1 Doles on 7 March 2002 at 9:30 a.m. Thus, there is uncertainty on the identity of the person who had custody of the sachets from the time they were received and marked by SPO3 Labiano. As a consequence, the identity and integrity of the items received by the crime laboratory for examination were placed in serious doubt.
Furthermore, there are evident discrepancies with respect to the amount of the substance confiscated from Calma by the buy-bust team, the amount of the alleged illegal drugs examined by PI Madria, and the amount of shabu seized from Calma as alleged in the Information.
In the Information, it was alleged that Calma " ... wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess, sell, administer, deliver and give away to law enforcement agents who posed as buyers point eight (0.8) gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), more or less." However, according to the Request for Laboratory and Urine Examination, the specimens weighed a total of 0.08 gram only - 0.02 gram for the first sachet (Exhibit "A-1 ") sold to the poseur buyer, and 0.06 gram for the second sachet (Exhibit "A-2") found inside Calma's wallet. Clearly, a discrepancy exists as the substance allegedly seized from Calma weighed 0.72 gram more than the substance submitted for laboratory examination.
On the other hand, PI Madria specified in her Chemistry Report No. D-14-2002 that Exhibits "A-1" and "A-2" weighed 0.20 gram and 0.03 gram, respectively. During her cross-examination, PI Madria explained that the amounts of the specimens she examined could be different from the amounts reported by the investigators because she had removed the plastic sachets before she weighed them, whereas the investigators included the weight of these sachets in their report, thus:
[ATTY. DACAYO:]
Q. Did you weigh the shabu specimens, what was the weight of the shabu if you still remember?
A. Exhibit "A-1," the first sachet contains .2 grams containing white crystalline substance, sir.
Q. How about the other one?
A. .03, sir.
Q. According to Exh. "K" for the prosecution which is the request for laboratory and urine examination, the weight of the shabu given to you is .02 grams while the second is .06 grams, why do you say now that the description given to you by the request is the same in accordance with your observation?
A. The description I'm referring to is not actually the weight but the markings. And if it is really heat-sealed those were my considerations, sir.
Q. Are you telling us that the request for Laboratory Examination is erroneous when it comes to the weight of the shabu?
A. I'm not actually telling that, sir, but the weight conducted by the investigators is not the same with the weight of the Chemist because the investigators included the plastic sachets. They don't remove the plastic sachets whenever they weighed the white crystalline substance, sir.
Q. So are you telling us that these .03 grams included the plastic sachet containing shabu?
A. Yes, sir. Most probably another consideration is the weighing scale that we used.
Q. So, in other words, these shabu could be less than what was stated here which is .2 and .06 respectively because the plastic sachets are included, am I right?
A. Most probably, sir.
Q. When you weighed these shabu, did you include the plastic sachets?
A. No, sir.
Q. And when you weighed the shabu, the weight that registered in your measuring scale is .03 grams for Exh. A-2 and .2 grams for Exh. A-1, am I correct?
A. Yes, sir.
COURT:
Q. So what it is the ultimate weight of these shabu specimens?
A. 0.23 grams, sir.
ATTY. DACAYO:
Q. And that 0.23 grams does not include the plastics sachets?
A. Yes, sir.31
The Court is unconvinced by this explanation.1âwphi1 As earlier noted, the drug evidence submitted for examination by the police officers, substance and plastic sachets together, weighed a total of 0.08 gram. On the other hand, according to the forensic chemist, the total weight of the substance alone is 0.23 gram. The Court is unable to accept this explanation as it would be practically and scientifically impossible for the substance alone to weigh 0.15 gram more when the plastic sachets were removed.
Verily, the chain of custody was effectively broken by the fact that the plastic sachets confiscated from Calma were not marked immediately after their seizure and done at or near the place where the buy-bust operation was conducted; that there was doubt on the identity of the persons who had actually taken custody of the subject sachets prior to their turnover to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination; and that there is material discrepancy in the amount of the shabu allegedly confiscated from Calma and the amount of shabu examined by the forensic chemist. The integrity of the sachets of shabu which were presented in evidence before the trial court was tainted. Needless to state, a reasonable doubt was created as to whether the plastic sachets containing white crystalline substances that were presented before the trial court are the same ones that were confiscated from Calma. A judgment of acquittal is thus in order.
Calma's cellphone and motorcycle
not forfeited in favor of the
government.
Section 20 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, provides in part:
Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime. - x x x
Every penalty imposed for the unlawful importation, sale, administration, delivery, transportation or manufacture of dangerous drugs, the cultivation of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs and the possession of any opium pipe and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs shall carry with it the confiscation and forfeiture, in favor of the Government, of all the proceeds of the crime including but not limited to money and other assets obtained thereby and the instruments or tools with which it was committed, unless they are the property of a third person not liable for the offense, but those which are not of lawful commerce shall be ordered destroyed without delay. Dangerous drugs and plant sources of such drugs, as well as, the proceeds or instruments of the crime so confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government shall be turned over to the Board for proper disposal without delay.
In Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency v. Brodett,32 it was explained that proceeds or instruments of the crime are confiscated and forfeited because the accused must not profit from his crime; neither must he acquire property or acquire the right to possession of property through its unlawful act. This is considered an action in personam which is part of the criminal proceedings against the defendant, rather than a separate proceeding against the property itself.33
Considering, however, that the guilt of Calma was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, it then follows that the seized items which do not constitute illegal or prohibited drugs - the cellphone and motorcycle - cannot be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government. Such disposition could only be made upon the conviction of the accused, which is not the case here.
WHEREFORE, the present petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the assailed Decision, dated 28 September 2007, of the Court of Appeals in CAG. R. CR No. 27659 affirming the Decision, dated 17 June 2003, of the Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 27 in Criminal Case No. 4133 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Amelio Calma y Buenviaje is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Further, items confiscated from him which are considered of lawful commerce are likewise ordered RELEASED in his favor.
SO ORDERED.
SAMUEL R. MARTIRES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice |
MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN
Associate Justice |
FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA*
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
* Additional member per Raffle dated 9 October 2017.
1 Rollo,pp.19-38.
2 Records, pp. 145-149.
3 Id. at 1.
4 Id. at 27.
5 TSN, 25 September 2002, pp. 5-9; testimony of PO2 Padilla.
6 Records, p. 5.
7 TSN, 25 September 2002, pp. 9-11; testimony of PO2 Padilla.
8 TSN, 26 September 2002, pp. 12-13; testimony of PO2 Padilla.
9 Records, p. 138.
10 TSN, 26 September 2002, pp. 14-15; testimony of PO2 Padilla.
11 Records, p. 138.
12 TSN, 26 September 2002, pp. 16-18; testimony of PO2 Padilla.
13 Records, p. 139.
14 TSN, 14 April 2003 & 21 April 2003; testimonies of Calma; TSN, 5 May 2003; testimony of De Guzman.
15 Records, p. 149.
16 Rollo, p. 38.
17 Id. at 9-10.
18 People v. Gonzaga, 647 Phil. 65, 85-86 (2010) citing People v. Lazaro, Jr., 619 Phil. 235, 257 (2009).
19 People v. Albarido, 420 Phil. 235, 244(2001 ).
20 Peoples. Tiu, 460 Phil. 95 (2003).
21 People v. Lee, 457 Phil. 443, 449 (2003).
22 People v. Ismael, G.R. No. 208093, 20 February 2017; People v. Alcuizar, 662 Phil. 794, 801 (2011).
23 Malilin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
24 Id.
25 Lopez v. People, 725 Phil. 499, 508 (2014).
26 Id.
27 TSN, 26 November 2002, pp. 2-3; testimony of PO2 Padilla.
28 Id. at 58.
29 TSN, 9 December 2002, pp. 32-33; testimony of PO2 Padilla.
30 Records, p. 138.
31 TSN, 13 January 2003, pp. 12-15; testimony of Madria.
32 674 Phil. 121, 133 (2011).
33 The Wellex Group, Inc. v. Sandiganbayan, 689 Phil. 44, 62-63 (2012).
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
